[License-review] ModelGo Attribution License, Version 2.0 FINAL CALL FOR COMMENTS

[Moming Duan]

Hi McCoy and all,


OSD 5 says the license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons. Here, Licensor is a role in the license, not a person. And the
license itself says how the role moves. The Section 2.1 grant is
sublicensable, and 2.2(a)(i) requires a copy of this License to travel with
every Distribution. Even the definition of "Licensed Materials", things
"Distributed by the Licensor", only really works if each distributor is the
Licensor for what it distributes. So a licensee who passes the model or a
Derivative Material on is granting the license onward. It stands as
Licensor to the people it supplied, and a patent claim by those people does
trigger termination.

About your May 2025 conclusion, I want to be precise. You wrote then that
this termination provision was not an OSD violation but an uptake issue,
and that conclusion was about the Derivative Materials part, which is your
Q4:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-May/005764.html
The OSD 5 question, whether the trigger should reach beyond the Licensor,
is new in this final call, and you yourself put it as "arguably". So I read
it as an open question rather than a settled one, and not something to
concede on my own.

It's true that a user who never distributed anything, and sues another
licensee, does not lose the license. That is deliberate. The patent grant
has one source, and the promise not to assert runs to that source. A
dispute between two people who never granted each other anything is outside
that exchange.

So my reading is that the clause, as written, does not discriminate against
any person or group, and I'd like to keep the current wording.


Best,
Moming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260918/6d8bf09c/attachment.htm>